UKC

Thinking about getting one, read all the glowing reviews and such, just wanted to see if any fellow UKcers have used one and how you got on with it?

Cheers
G

In reply to CrushUnit:

I've used both that and the Non IS f/2.8. I honestly preferred the 2.8 but there is a good price difference.

In reply to Stevie989:

Yeah I would love the 2.8 but can't afford to pay an extra 1k for an extra stop of light ;-(

In reply to CrushUnit:

I had the MK1 non IS - you'll pick that up for decent money.

In reply to CrushUnit:

I've had the f4 in 70-200L is and now have the 2.8 equivelent.

The 2.8 is obviously better, but no doubt about it, the f4 is fantastic.

If I had one, I've likely favour it over the 2.8 for landscape stuff as it is considerably lighter and smaller.

Very good lens.

In reply to Tom Last:

Thanks, I had heard the 2.8 is a beast.

I've a 200 2.8 mk2 is. Fantastic lens

In reply to CrushUnit:

I sold mine though and now have the 135L - knocks spots off and of the zooms….

In reply to CrushUnit:

I have a 70-200 f4 non-IS

Rarely use it due I think to lack of IS. A bit slow too. With my old 60d that was a real pain. The5D is much better due to low light ability. To be honest I'm planning to get the f2.8 IS v soon (was checking one out at the weekend) but they're v heavy/large it has to be said...

In reply to CrushUnit:

http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-ef-70-200mm-f28l-usm-246-p.asp

Only £100 more than the F4 IS.

I have had my 2.8 for 7 years now and it's just superb.

In reply to chris fox:

Hmmm that looks a good deal.... but now I am a little confused... from f4 to 2.8 I gain one full stop of light is that correct? but the is on the f4 would give me 3 isn stops in terms of lower shutter speed for hand held, so if the 2.8 is not so important to me in terms on dof would't the f4 give me the ability to shoot handheld at lower shutter speeds than the 2.8?

My head hurts...

In reply to CrushUnit:

Also, remember the 2.8 is heavier than the f4.

In reply to chris fox:

Check out this review of the 70-200 f4 IS USM;

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d

Lots of advantages to the f4 over the 2.8 including smaller size and weight, ability to use smaller, cheaper filters and optically it's brilliant and used by lots of landscape photographers.

Main advantage of the 2.8 is it's aperture will allow faster shutter speeds (so good for action) and greater control of depth of field ie what is or isn't in focus.

In reply to CrushUnit:
I have one. Very good lens. Thought about the 2.8 but it's so much heavier and bigger, it's a non-starter for mountain landscape use. I don't miss the 2.8 aperture.

One more thing to perhaps consider is that 1.4x and 2x extenders will work better with the 2.8.

In reply to CrushUnit:

It's a cracking lens, sharp and contrasty. It is well built and the IS works brilliantly. If you can live with the f4 aperture by all means, go for it. It has advantages over the non IS f2.8 such as IS (obviously), much lighter and smaller which comes into play more if you have a small camera body (my f2.8 wasn't great on a 400D, decent on 40D but brilliant on 1D because of balance), smaller filters and it is also sharper. The only thing I'd suggest though if you are looking at the f4 IS is to consider the 70-300L lens. Sharp as anything, longer zoom range but obviously a stop of light loss at the long end. The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC is also getting stellar reviews but is a bit more expensive than the canon f4.

If your primary lens is a 24-105 or 17-55 the 70-200 f4 seems like an ideal companion. If you are shooting sport or strobist stuff get the non IS 70-200 but for everything else IS is a god send with a focal length like that. f4 will give you very blurred backgrounds if you are a bit careful, especially portraits at 200mm